36697/16

Plný text

THIRD SECTION CASE OF VERDIYEV AND VERDIYEVA v. AZERBAIJAN (Application no. 36697/16) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 July 2026 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Verdiyev and Verdiyeva v. Azerbaijan, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Mateja Đurović, President, Lətif Hüseynov, Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, judges, and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no. 36697/16) against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 22 June 2016 by two Azerbaijani nationals, Mr Firuz Jamil oglu Verdiyev and Ms Safayat Gachay gizi Verdiyeva (Firuz Cəmil oğlu Verdiyev and Səfayət Qaçay qızı Verdiyeva – “the applicants”), who were born in 1960 and 1967 respectively, live in Ganja and were represented by Mr M. Mustafayev, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan; the decision to give notice of the application to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 16 June 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.  The case mainly concerns the applicants’ complaints that they had received inadequate compensation for the unlawful demolition of their property.

2. The applicants owned a non-residential property with a total surface area of 271.9 sq. m and the plot of land underlying it with a total surface area of 0.2999 ha in Ganja city, Kapaz District.

3. According to the applicants, in August 2013 the applicants’ property was demolished by the Kapaz District Executive Authority (“the KDEA”).

4. On an unspecified date the applicants brought proceedings against the KDEA and the Kapaz District Police Department in the Ganja Administrative-Economic Court, requesting that the court award them 520,000 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) for the loss of their property, AZN 150,000 for the loss of their personal belongings and AZN 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. They relied on a valuation report drawn up by a private company, the A. company, according to which the estimated market value of the property and the plot of land underlying it was between AZN 510,000 and AZN 520,000 (equivalent to between approximately 496,790 euros (EUR) and EUR 506,530 at the relevant time).

5. On 28 February 2014 the Ganja Administrative-Economic Court declared the claim inadmissible in the part relating to the loss of their personal belongings and in the part against the Kapaz District Police Department, and dismissed the remainder of their claim, finding that the applicants had failed to provide the court with evidence in support of their allegations.

6. The applicants appealed, arguing mainly that the demolition had been unlawful and requesting compensation in that regard.

7. By a judgment of 6 May 2014, the Ganja Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeal. That judgment was, however, quashed by the Supreme Court on 6 August 2014, which remitted the case for fresh examination.

8. On 10 February 2015 the Ganja Court of Appeal ordered an expert examination to determine the market value of the demolished property.

9. On 29 May 2015 Territorial Office no. 3 of the State Registry Service for Immovable Property of the State Committee on Property Issues submitted to the court a one-page expert opinion indicating the value of the demolished property to be AZN 50,000 (approximately EUR 43,660 at the relevant time).

10. On 30 June 2015 the Ganja Court of Appeal granted the applicants’ appeal in part and ordered the respondent to pay AZN 50,000 (approximately EUR 42,970 at the relevant time) to the applicants. The court established that the applicants’ non-residential property had been unlawfully demolished by the KDEA. The court rejected the valuation report submitted by the applicants, noting that it gave a combined valuation of the non-residential property and the plot of land underlying it, even though the applicants’ right to use the land had never been restricted. The compensation amount was therefore determined on the basis of the above-mentioned expert opinion (see paragraph 9 above).

11. The applicants appealed, arguing mainly that the amount of compensation had been inadequate and that the appellate court had failed to consider the report provided by them.

12. According to the applicants, while the court proceedings were ongoing, they submitted to the Supreme Court a new valuation report drawn up by private company V., which estimated the value of the demolished property at AZN 121,600 and the value of the underlying land at AZN 239,900 (approximately EUR 119,050 and EUR 234,850, respectively) around the time of the demolition.

13. On 9 December 2015 the Supreme Court granted the applicants’ appeal in part, awarding them AZN 2,000 (approximately EUR 1,750 at the relevant time) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and dismissed the remainder of their claim. The Supreme Court reiterated the appellate court’s reasoning and added that the valuation report drawn up by the A. company could not be used as a basis for calculating the amount of damages to be awarded, as it lacked information as to its sources and the data relied on, whereas the opinion submitted by the relevant State authority (see paragraph 9 above) relied on data from the State Register. It also noted that the report drawn up by the A. company relied on market offer prices rather than actual transaction prices.

14. The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that they had been unlawfully deprived of their property and that they had not been awarded fair compensation. They also complained of a violation of their rights to a reasoned judgment and an effective remedy under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention. The applicants further complained that the Supreme Court’s final judgment had not been enforced. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION The plot of land 15.  The applicants submitted that they had been prohibited from making use of the plot of land underlying the demolished property, arguing that a road had been constructed, and trees had been planted, on it. The Government argued that the plot had remained in the applicants’ ownership and use and that there had been no circumstances preventing them from making use of it.

16. It is undisputed that the plot of land underlying the non-residential property, as indicated in the ownership document and the domestic courts’ judgments, had been in the applicants’ private ownership. However, the parties are in dispute as to the existence of interference with the applicants’ property rights over the plot of land.

17. The Court observes that it was established by the appellate court that the applicants had not been prevented from using the plot of land (see paragraph 10 above). The Court further observes that the applicants never disputed this finding in the domestic courts. In their cassation appeal, they submitted arguments relating mainly to the amount of the compensation (see paragraph 11 above). In the absence of any substantiated arguments or reliable evidence submitted by the applicants to the domestic authorities, it cannot be established that there has been an interference with the applicants’ property rights over the plot of land in question. It follows that this part of the complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. The non-residential property 18.  The Government argued that the applicants could not claim to be victims of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention because the domestic courts had established a violation of their property rights and had awarded them adequate compensation. The applicants maintained their complaints.

19. The Court considers that, in the particular circumstances of the case, the Government’s objection is so closely connected to the merits of the applicants’ complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that it should be joined to the merits (see, for a similar approach, Khizanishvili and Kandelaki v. Georgia, no. 25601/12, § 44, 17 December 2019). The Court further notes that the complaint is not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

20. The applicable principles under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention have been summarised in, among others, Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia ([GC], no. 71243/01, §§ 95-99 and 108-14, 25 October 2012).

21. As regards the applicants’ complaint concerning the lawfulness of the demolition, the domestic courts found that the applicants’ property had been demolished unlawfully (see paragraph 10 above). They therefore acknowledged the violation of their property rights. They also awarded them compensation, the amount of which the applicants contested. The Court will consider the question at the core of the applicants’ complaint, namely whether the compensation awarded to them was adequate. While the domestic courts are normally in a better position to determine the existence and quantum of pecuniary damage (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 203, ECHR 2006-V), the Court has jurisdiction to assess whether compensation was reasonably related to the value of the property taken, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Khizanishvili and Kandelaki, cited above, § 50).

22. As regards the valuation report drawn up by the V. company (see paragraph 12 above), the materials in the case file do not allow the Court to determine whether that report was indeed submitted to and examined by the Supreme Court. As for the valuation report drawn up by the A. company, the domestic courts dismissed it, providing reasons as to why they chose to do so (see paragraphs 4, 10 and 13 above; compare Giuffrè and Others v. Italy [Committee], no. 50827/11, § 40, 5 September 2024, with further references).

23. However, the Court observes that in deciding to make an award to the applicants in respect of pecuniary damage, the domestic courts themselves relied on a one-page expert opinion which merely cited the State Register as its source, without providing any explanation of the methodology used (compare Maharramov v. Azerbaijan (just satisfaction), no. 5046/07, § 17, 9 May 2019, and Islamzade v. Azerbaijan [Committee], no. 9504/14, § 17, 23 September 2025). The Court further observes that, although the expert opinion referred to a report (hesabat) drawn up by a private company, that document is not included in the case file and the domestic courts did not mention it or provide any information regarding its contents or relevance.

24. It follows that the domestic courts failed to provide adequate reasoning for the approach followed and for the level of compensation awarded (compare Khizanishvili and Kandelaki, cited above, § 58, and Islamzade, cited above, § 19).

25. In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Court concludes that the applicants were not awarded full compensation in respect of the unlawful demolition of their property. The Court therefore dismisses the Government’s objection concerning their victim status. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION as regards the Delayed enforcement of the final judgment 26.  As regards the applicants’ complaint about non-enforcement of the Supreme Court’s final judgment of 9 December 2015 (see paragraphs 13 and 14 above), it appears from the documents submitted by the Government that, after the lodging of the present application, the judgment in question was enforced on 29 June 2017.

27. This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other grounds. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible.

28. Having regard to its case-law on the subject (see Akhundov v. Azerbaijan, no. 39941/07, §§ 31-36, 3 February 2011, and Titan Total Group S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 61458/08, § 8, 6 July 2021) and the fact that it took more than one and a half years for the judgment in question to be enforced, the Court finds that the judgment was not enforced within a reasonable time. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. OTHER COMPLAINTS 29.  As concerns the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 (right to a reasoned judgment) and Article 13 of the Convention, having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case and that there is no need to examine the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 30.  In respect of pecuniary damage, the applicants claimed 390,750 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) for the demolished property and AZN 241,288 for the interest on that amount. They also claimed 50,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. They referred to the valuation reports drawn up by the A. and V. companies (see paragraphs 4 and 12 above).

31. Referring to the domestic courts’ findings, the Government asked the Court to reject the applicants’ claims, maintaining that the domestic courts had awarded adequate compensation to the applicants.

32. Having regard to its conclusions above (see paragraphs 22-24 above), and considering all the material in its possession, the Court considers that the valuation report drawn up by the V. company, provided by the applicants, should be taken as the basis for the assessment of the pecuniary damage in the present case. Taking into account the compensation already received by the applicants and the interest rates of the Central Bank of Azerbaijan, the Court considers it reasonable to award them jointly EUR 71,750 in respect of pecuniary damage.

33. The Court further accepts that the applicants suffered some distress as a result of the violations found and awards them jointly EUR 3,700 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

34. The applicants did not submit a claim in respect of costs and expenses. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award them any sum on that account. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Joins to the merits the Government’s objection as to the loss of victim status in so far as it relates to the part of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the non-residential property, and dismisses it; Declares the part of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the plot of land inadmissible, and the remainder of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the non-residential property admissible; Declares the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the delayed enforcement of the Supreme Court’s final judgment admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the delayed enforcement of the Supreme Court’s final judgment; Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints; Holds that the respondent State is to pay to the applicants jointly, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: EUR 71,750 (seventy-one thousand seven hundred and fifty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage; EUR 3,700 (three thousand seven hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 July 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Olga Chernishova Mateja Đurović Deputy Registrar President